campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:MAAs
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)! Why is this listed under Civil Rights? Why is it in the Campaign Wiki at all? The author needs to say at the top what the Civil Rights Issue is which is related to "MAA's" , and what the Campaign-related implications of that issue are. -user:Dan robinson *We demand the basic civil right of not being treated as child molesters *Our goal is to explain the difference between a child molester and a person who is attracted to minors. *If you don't agree with what we say, then we welcome your opinion, but this article deserves its place as a civil rights issue. BLueRibbon 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC) We also need case law to determine whether we are legally protected as a 'sexual orientation.' If not, we need to campaign to have existing laws read 'sexuality' instead (or another less controversial word). This page will probably seem more relevant when it's finished. Jillium 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC) : No, were not legally protected as a sexual orientation yet. I personally feel that we should stick to our current goals in this project, but that's only my opinion. BLueRibbon 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ::Okay. The other probably wouldn't be attainable this way, anyway. Jillium 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I think this MAA campaign misses the point slightly. Even if you can gain a tiny bit of respect from non-pedophiles, so what? Any expression of your sexuality is still illegal in most countries, and is legally termed "abuse" or "molestation" - deliberately emotive terms that you even fall into the trap of using yourselves. The real issue is the legal AOC itself and, on a deeper level, the FALSE but immensely popular idea that a "minor" (a classification which varies depending on AOC in different countries) cannot enjoy any sexual contact with an adult without it being "abuse". As somebody sexually "abused" (see the loaded term?) in my own childhood, I KNOW this to be utterly false. My sexual experiences did not damage me in the slightest, although the aftermath did, once various witch-hunting adults became involved. I practically had to withstand a form of brainwashing that I'd been the victim of a hideous assault, when in fact everything had been consensual. Until the assumption of harm is removed, until children are emancipated to explore sexual experiences with whoever they choose, and until AOC laws are abolished, there is no real hope for either children or pedophiles with regards to these issues. And until all these issues are properly addressed/resolved, there is no real prospect that pedophiles will be "accepted" either. You're just viewed as "potential abusers" rather than youth-lovers or child-lovers..... -195.93.21.70 02:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :Thank you for bringing your perspective to the table. It's important to hear all sides. Chadlupkes 21:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC) *The issue of MAAs is a socially and politically relevant topic, since, as BLueRibbon says, there are rights (and responsibilities) to be discussed, and moral questions to be addressed. Therefore, I believe that it is completely valid to have an article about MAAs in Campaigns Wikia, as it can promote an informed debate over future legislation concerning them. --Waldsen 03:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) The claims made by "Mytreazurz" are from an anti-paedophile propaganda book, not a scientific study. They were posted by internet troll Marina H. (Stitches77) who runs a blog which discusses methods for killing paedophiles frequently in the comments sections. BLueRibbon 14:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) : The other studies which they added are based on studies of child molesters, not MAAs and are not relevant to this article. Maybe there could be an article which fights against child molestation for this material? BLueRibbon 14:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC) :: Maybe the studies they added are biased. However, the clarifications Mytreazurz gives in the Quotes sections are completely valid, and address the topic at hand. I will not add those interpretations until we have some sort of consensus, as I don't want an edit war, but the article cannot supress opinions that offer a serious and respectful critique of your posture. -- Waldsen 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC) :::These studies aren't biased at all. Gene Abel is quoted by pedophiles also. They merely choose the sections they want the most and ignore the parts that aren't in their favor. These results are the latest and by THE most respected of all sex researchers. The other quotes they have are misleading and in some instances complete lies. Trying to imply that pedophiles aren't child molesters goes completely against the current literature when it has been proven that 95% of all molestations are committed by MAA's in other words pedophiles with a milder name. Furthermore mytreasurz doesn't run any blog at all let alone a 'hate group'. Is this entry to promote propoganda or TRUTH? User:Mytreasurz ::::Mytreasurz, you run the blog Absolute Zero as "Stitches77". Abel's research was based on child molesters not paedophiles. Her intention was to prevent child molestation and she started with the idea that paedophiles=child molesters. You state on your blog (in the archives) that the Wikia article should be trolled (or similar words) because you disagree with it. What you have quoted comes directly from the Absolute Zero blog (and the Google cache has evidence of that). ::::An unbiased study was conducted by Lanning, a highly respected FBI agent, in which he made it clear that most sex crimes against children were committed by non-MAAs, especially parents. Why don't you start a page fighting child molestation instead of MAAs, if you want to protect children from abuse. I would happily help you. BLueRibbon 16:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Yes, I see that the in favor position also quotes Abel. I believe erasing Mytreazurz's addition was counter-productive. BLueRibbon, although this article has an extensive defense of paedophilia, there is always space for critisism. If you believe a section is biased, maybe you should try to improve it, not simply delete it. -- Waldsen 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC) ::::First let me say that I am not Stitches. Second Stitches did once edit this entry at which time Blueribbon posted her personal information he obtained from the post, onto his blog. Now about this entry, Blueribbon is making statement as fact which in fact are not facts at all but a contortion of what someone once wrote which has since been challenged and disproven anyway. Secondly, Ken Lanning of the FBI NEVER quoted that 90% figure. It was written by the journalist DiLorenzo who IMPLIED that Lanning said this. It's in none of his writings and in fact goes against everything he said. As for Abel's figures, they were from a study of over 16,000 men and concluded that over 95% of ALL child molestations are commited by pedophiles (or MAA's to use your word) The PURPOSE of the study was to determine how to STOP child molestations. The solution was to identify pedophiles BEFORE they offend and give them treatment. The other studies quoted from the NWT and Canada Correctional did NOT say what this entry says they did. The Hall, Freund, Briere and other studies quoted here did NOT say that 25-33% of men had pedophilic attractions, what they SAID was that the use of phallometry indicated that these men had a higher arousability than other men. In other words, they might be the type to become aroused by the sight of a stick laying on the side of the road. And I believe that one way to STOP molestations Blueribbon, might be to have a talk with your Dad who is trying to stop you from molesting that poor 12 year old boy before it's too late. :::::Hmm, what we have posted is there for everyone to read. I encourage people to read what we posted so they can see that you are being dishonest. As far as my personal issues go, when I leave home I will become a teacher or something similar, so I will get to spend plenty of time with the people I love. I think you know that spending time alone with a boy is not child molestation. Speaking of child molestation, are you going to start a page fighting against it or do you simply not care? BLueRibbon 17:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC) I* don't have to start a page fighting against child molestation. Absolute Zero is carrying on that fight. I may take up your suggestion though and join them. I* have not been dishonest at all. I have told the exact truth with references that say EXACTLY what I said they say. YOU, on the other hand are being dishonest. YOUR references DO NOT SAY what you say they say. Your goal, you say, is to educate people about MAA's and increase awareness and tolerance and yet you deceive in order to try to achieve that. That will not increase tolerance. Liars generally have a lot to hide. Abel's BOOK says everything you need to know. I suggest you go buy it and educate yourself. You will only become a teacher so that you can molest young children if you keep yourself under the radar and go undetected. I* am here to make sure that you don't. :Absolute Zero is not fighting child molesters. It is just discussing methods of how to kill paedophiles. Maybe you could read the blog I once owned. :I also don't see how a school could refuse to allow me to teach. They're only allowed to prevent sex offenders from teaching. Even if they know I'm a paedophile, it would officially be discrimination against a mental illness, and therefore illegal to prevent me from teaching. Why do you think that I want to molest young boys. Where have I even suggested that I want to do that and why do you think that I want to harm someone I love? You're not making any sense. :I do not deceive. I post studies which you can read for yourself, many of which were conducted when I was younger than my YF currently is. Hmm, I can't really have influenced those, can I? Please use your brain rather than repeat everything from AZ. Most of what they say is untrue; they always use semi-quotes. BLueRibbon 18:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)